RomanArmyTalk
Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Good helmets for early second century legionarries (/showthread.php?tid=3728)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Flavius Promotus - 12-15-2005

Hi Folks,
sorry for joining the discussion at a rather late date, but I would need some advice on a subtype of the Weisenau family.

A few friends of mine are interested in the Imperial Italic D from Mainz-Weisenau. Deepeeka has a copy but as usual it also sports a few flaws. Can anybody give me some hints how to improve it ?

[Image: DP6054.jpg]

According to Robinson, 1975, The Armour of Imperial Rome, p. 68-70, this helmet comes is a 1st century AD one, but Junkelmann (et al.), 2000, Roemische Helme, Axel Guttmann Kollektion Vol VIII, p. 84 dates it in the middle or 2nd half of the 2nd century.

Which piece of information is the more reliable one ???

Suppose this helmet is indeed from a mid to 2nd half of the 2nd century context, could a few specimen still have been in use around 200 AD ?
I first thought 'no way', but since some Corbridges were POSSIBLY in use until the 1st half of the third century, why not ?

Thank you in advance,
Florian

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Tib. Gabinius - 12-15-2005

Grüß dich
ich vertraue da eher Junkelmann. Seih dir die stilisierten Kreuzbügel an, es wäre ungewöhnlich wenn dieses Element, dass bekanntlich erst kurz vor oder während der Dakerkriege Einzug gehalten hatte schon während dieser nur noch Zierfunktion einnehmen würde. Das nur als eines der Indizien.

Ich sehe überhaupt kein Problem diesen Helm bei einer 200er Datierung zu tragen.
Punz vielleicht noch ein oer zwei Namen von "Vorbesitzern" rein und fertig.
Vale
Tib.


For those who cant talk german i ll try to translate. Its not a try to anoy you, just my problems with this language which forced me to say in german to a german, so he can understand me without problems.

I told him, that i trust in junkelmann, not only cause hes trustable at all, but one evidence at the helm, the "crossbar", not anymore from massive steel seems to agree to junkelmann. from dacian wars and invention to just a decorative element its a big step, i think.
And also i dont see any problems to wear this helm, even if he bring some marks which looks like this helm is used about a longer time.

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS - 12-15-2005

Salve.

I think Itallic D helmet was found in the river Rhin, so it's well preserved and without estratigraphic context.

In our group, we have a Deepeeka's one, with some improvements, made by myself. Problem is Deepeka's helmats are very variable, and so a exemplar can be very diferent to another.

Principal problems with that helmet are:

-Brow reinforcing bar: You can make another and replace the incorrect one. And riveting it OUT of the cross reiforced brass strips.

-Eagles and temples: You can engrave some decoration with a pointed tool or chisel. If your exemplar have those things rivetes, you can file the rivet top.

-Rear handle: you can replace the iron one by antother better made.

Tibisius (another RAT member) is the happy owner of that helmet i have mentioned. We'll put a photo of that improvments.

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Flavius Promotus - 12-15-2005

Tiberius, I think you (and Junkelmann :wink: ) are both right. The Niedermoermter is usually dated to the period from the late 2nd to the first half of the 3rd century, and the Imperial Italic D looks like its predecessor, as it shares several characteristics with the Niedermoermter (the Frankenstein style hornlets like on the Niedermoermter brass, the brass crossbars like on the iron/brass helmet from the Axel Guttmann collection, the huge 'platform' on the top...).

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Martin Moser - 12-15-2005

Hi,

Quote:A few friends of mine are interested in the Imperial Italic D from Mainz-Weisenau. Deepeeka has a copy but as usual it also sports a few flaws. Can anybody give me some hints how to improve it ?

Does somebody perhaps have this helmet's original publication data?

The reconstruction at
http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/c ... helm04.htm
shows it with angled edges on the neckguard, not rounded ones, btw.

TIA,

Martin

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS - 12-15-2005

Our helmet:

[Image: ImperialItalicD.jpg]

I'll get the camera to make better photos... :oops:

At the visual armamentarium in the roman hideout page: www.romanhideout.com you can see some excellent photos of the original.

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Crispvs - 12-16-2005

I have been very uncomfortable about Junklemann's reinterpretation of this helmet ever since I was astonished to find it placed half way up the double page purporting to depict the development of the Roman helmet in his 'Roemische Helme' book. As far as I can see (and here I admit my German is very poor) his definition of it as a mid second century helmet is based purely on the assumtion that the copper alloy decoration is a development of the crossed re-enforcments found on the Berzobis and Hebron helmets.

Aside from the crossed decoration what is there to distinguish it from other mid first century helmets? Very little, I would contend. The neck guard is similar in size to the Valkenburg helmet (deposited between AD39 and AD43) and the very similar Idria helmet, both defined by Robinson as Imperial Gallic type 'E', the Imp. Gal. 'I's from Mainz, Aquincum and the Guttmann collection, the Imp. Italic 'C' helmet from Cremona and the Imp. It. 'E' from Hofheim which Robinson notes that "...it is in every respect similar to type D [the helmet from Mainz under discussion here] in form except that the flange of the neck-guard is sloping instead of flat." The cheek guards of the Hofheim helmet are very similar to one of the cheek guards on the Mainz helmet. Robinson notes that it was found in a level dating to around AD100 and given that it had been stripped of most of its fittings was probably already old when it was deposited. This increases the possibility of the Mainz helmet being mid first century rather then mid second century. The size of the occipital area of the Mainz helmet is also in keeping with other early to mid first century helmets.

The Niedermoemter helmet and other similar helmets from Hessen and the Guttmann collection, by contrast, have a very deep occipital region, a huge neck guard with soldered pearled strip decoration. The Niedermoemter and Guttmann helmets also have a great stepped knob on top which, I admit, looks superficially similar to the crest mounting on the Mainz helmet at first sight. However, on examination the crest support has much more in common with the crest support on the Italic 'C' from Cremona than the knobs on the Niedermoemter and Guttmann helmets. The carrying handle on the Mainz helmet is also much more similar to the carrying handle on the Imperial Gallic 'G' helmet from Mainz now in the Museum at Worms than it is to the carrying handle on the Niedermoemter helmet. The copper alloy sheathing on the occipital area of the Mainz helmet is also similar in nature to ccopper alloy sheathing on first century cavalry helmets.
If it were not for the crossed copper alloy decoration I doubt that anyone would have imagined for a moment that the Mainz helmet was anything other than a mid first century AD helmet.

These decorations do not necessarily have to be derived from crossed re-enforcements. Given the similarity of the Hofheim helmet to the Mainz helmet this style of decoration may have been more common than we normally imagine. I think we might also ask what the inspiration was for the re-enforcements on the Berzobis helmet. Did the Romans sit down and think: 'That Dacian falx does a lot of damage to our helmets. What would nullify the effect? I know - crossed metal bars!'. Or might they have sat down and said: 'That Dacian falx does a lot of damage to our helmets. What would nullify the effect? Here's a thought - you know the crossed metal decoration on some old helmets - what if we fitted helmets with a strengthened version of that? You know I think that might be an idea - let's try it!' Nothing more than a suggestion of course but I don't seem to remember anyone suggesting it before.

In summary then, I think the combination of several recognisable features greatly outweighs the assumption about a single feature and I am even prepared to consider the possibility that crossed decoration may have inspired crossed re-enforcements.

I have a lot of respect for Marcus Junkelmann and the work he has done, but in regard to this helmet I feel strongly that he is mistaken.

Crispvs

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Tib. Gabinius - 12-16-2005

Ok, lets try to discuss it in english. I hope my written wont hurt your eyes Big Grin

Yes, this helmet is in his look very similiar to the imperial gallic series. So is the Hebron and the Theilenhofen and Aquincum, both are clearly dated to the second century.
But hte more important fact is, they are dated to times, while the Niedermörmter seems already to be in use, if we take the time of 120 as his first appearing,also if we take the more "open" "mid second century".
So the argument: look at his dimensions" isnt the fact, which allow to deny the theories of Junkelmann. It allows to say: its just a theory and no one can say what is right or not.

Yes its also possible that the decorative Element was first, but if you look at the "crossbars" of the Weissenauhelmets of the dacian wars, the development to the Hebron styled and finally to the Niedermörmter, we see, that the strips first become integrated and than look like the decorative Elements of the here discussed "Imperial Italic D".
So, in my opinion its quite more logical, it swapped this way.

And if they did i like you told us, why they used thin strips instead of thise wide things, we see on the italic? They would help more and wouldnt, if the wear the Italic D first, not be more uncomfortable.

The argument about the crest mounting is, that it looks like the Niedermörmter but is used like early Italic, did i understood you right?

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS - 12-16-2005

I think brass strips for decoration and iron bars for strengthening are different things, and the unic thing that make it similar is the cross position in the helmet.

Assume that one and other have a relationship, is dangerous. Some late roman helmets have cross strips to rivet the different sections (spangen) and don't have a direct relationship with the cross bands of the Mainz or Niedermomter helmets. (I know my example is a little extreme :wink: )

Another argument for a early datation is the simplicity and little dimension of the cheekpieces. I think second century cheekpieces tends to be more protective and to enclose the face of the soldier.

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - drsrob - 12-17-2005

On the old Forum I had an extensive discussion about this helmet. Unfortunately the topic has not been copied to the new forum, though it still exists. See here.

In short I agree with Junkermann that the Imp. Ital. D is 2nd century in date, just as the E. And I too base this opinion on the assumption that the decorative cross-braces imitate functional cross-braces and must therefore postdate them.
The simplicity of the cheek-pieces only serve to reïnforce this notion. Early 1st century Imperial cheek-pieces have a high relief, but they become progressively flatter as time goes by. Even the Hebron helmet (definitely early 2nd century) has some ridges on the cheek-pieces. Remember also that neither the Niedermörmter helmet nor the Guttman version has cheek-pieces, so we don't know how far the had progressed towards the 3rd century style.
This helmet-style would also be late 2nd century, so there is enough time for it's natural development.

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Crispvs - 12-20-2005

Rob,
Your reply betrays a number of assumptions, none of which can be fully justified.
The fact that the cheek guards are close to being flat does not necessarily indicate that it has a second century origin. They are also quite small in comparison to known examples from the second century, as Lucius points out. The fact that they have no embossing is not unique amongst first century helmets. The two Coolus 'C' helmets from Schaan both have unembossed cheek guards and the surviving cheek guard on the cavalry helmet from Ely has only a small amount of embossing, being otherwise decorated with applied bosses. I am well aware that these helmets can be classed into different catagories but it is also true that a study of helmets in all such classes at any period in time will show a high degree of crossover. With only a handful of helmets surviving it is not possible to state with any degree of certainty that a particular decorative feature is inappropiate in terms of the way that the decoration has been achieved. Several styles or methods of decoration may have existed similtaneously, yet the evidence of most of them might long since have rusted away.
The plain browband is not necessarily indicitive of a second century date either. The two Imperial Italic 'C' helmets from Cremona are entirely without browbands (and probably always were) and the plain browband on the Imperial Italic 'D' from Mainz may be nothing more than a part of the same decorative sceme which allowed for the crossed decoration, the sheathing on the occipit and the images of temples and eagles. Incidentally the depiction of the temples is not wholly unlike the images of temples on some first century AD dagger sheaths.

Comparisons with other helmets are instructive, as the form of a helmet should be seen as a much more secure method of dating a helmet than its decoratiion. Connolly demonstrated some years ago that Robinson's typologies based on decorative elements were insecure and probably flawed. What I don't think has ever been at issue is that form is dictated by function. The actual form of a helmet, rather than its decorative elements is likely to be dictated (or at least heavily influenced) by the conditions of warfare which were expected at the time of its manufacture. thus we see a widening of neck guards throughout the late first century BC and the first half of the first century AD; the development of the peak/brow reinforce; the introduction of crossed reinforcements and the deepening of occipial regions and lengthening of cheek guards of the second century. Similar considerations were presumably behind the fact that the cheek guards of fourth century helments coveer the ears as well.
If its decoration is ignored, the Mainz helmet is far more similar to the Cremona helmets than the Theilenhofen helmet. Like other datable mid first century helmets the Mainz helmet has a relatively shallow occipital region and a crest holder of the same type as the Cremona Italic 'C' helmet in the Museo Stibbert and the two helmets in the National Museum, Naples said to come from Herculanium. The Theilenhofen helmet, by contrast, has a deep occipital region directly comparable to that of the Niedermoemter and Guttmann (mouse) helmets. The earliest fort at Theilenhofen dates to around AD100 and the crossed reinforcements are of the same type as the Hebron helmet, which cannot have been manufactured any earlier than the first Dacian war. Like the Niedermoemter and Guttmann helmets it has no provision for the fitting of a crest. It also has very long cheek guards, as does the Hebron helmet. It is tempting to date the Theilenhofen helmet to the middle half of the second century as it displays these features but does not possess the more fully formed type of crossed reinforcements which start to be found on Antonine period sites, although, of course, there is no guarantee that these were ever universal. The Niedermoemter and Guttmann helmets have neck guards comparable to helmets described by Robinson as Cavalry 'D' and 'E' but now generally thought of as infantry helmets which may have seen use into the third century, although the occipital region on these helmets has reached its furthest depth.
The Theilenhofen and Niedermoemter helmets then, without consideration of decoration, are securely identifiable as second century helmets. If the Mainz italic 'D' were to be stripped of its decoration, it would be seen that it is most similar to the two Cremona helmets and the helmet from Hofheim (which must already have been old when it was deposited around AD100). It must thus be considered that the Italic 'D' is unlikely to date to any time in the second century AD and is most probably of mid first century date.

Crispvs

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - drsrob - 12-21-2005

Quote:If the Mainz italic 'D' were to be stripped of its decoration, it would be seen that it is most similar to the two Cremona helmets and the helmet from Hofheim (which must already have been old when it was deposited around AD100).
To begin with your last remark; if you would fully read the link I gave you, you would find that I refuted the notion that the Hofheim helmet must have dated from the 1st century. You got your information from Robinson, but his wording indicates that his remark was based on direct communication with the escavator, H. Schoppa.

My sources were the following:
  • (1) H. Schoppa, Die Funde aus dem Vicus des Steinkastells Hofheim. I. Keramik außer Terra Sigillata. Veröffentlichungen des Landesambtes für kulturgeschichtliche Bodenaltertümer, Wiesbaden 1961.
    (2) H. Schoppa, Die römische Kaiserzeit. Sammlung nassauischer Altertümer Wiesbaden städtisches Museum, Scriften des städtischen Museums Wiesbaden Nr. 6, Wiesbaden 1967.
    (3) G. Waurick, "Die römische Kastelle und der Vicus in Hofheim", in D. Baatz, Hochtaunus, Bad Homburg, Usingen, Köningstein, Hofheim (Mainz 1974) pp. 228-236.
    (4) H. Schoppa, Fundberichte aus Hesse 5-6 (1965-66) 146 ff.
According to Schoppa the fort at Hofheim was built under Vespasian and destroyed during the revolt of Saturninus in AD 88/89. It was rebuilt in stone in AD 90 and abandoned under Hadrian in ca. AD 121/122. Next to it was a settlement (vicus) which has the same two periods of building activity. The cellar, in which the helmet was found, belongs to the second period. That means that it was left behind when the fort was abandoned, i.e. AD 121.
All this is from Schoppa.
In the light of this I can't believe that Schoppa told Robinson that the helmet was found in a layer that could be dated to AD 100 (Robinson's words).
I think, and now I'm speculating, that Robinson asked something in the nature of how early the helmet could have gotten there. Assuming the helmet would not have been stored in the cellar directly after it was build, AD 100 would have been a reasonable answer to that question.
However that may be, I think it's fairly certain that Robinson asked the wrong question, because if he had asked when was the helmet abandoned, Schoppa would have said: AD 121, because that's when he thought the cellar was abandoned.
One can say: "The helmet was stored earlier and forgotten." But that's pure speculation and something that can't be proven archaeologically.
Unfortunately neither Robinson, nor Schoppa can be asked about this as they're both dead.
Schoppa (1, pp. 5-6; 2 pp. 5 & 51-52) says that the fort was abandonded in 120-121 and the vicus at about the same time. However, Waurick (3, p. 235) states that it is not at all clear whether the fort was not abandoned later or whether the vicus was abandoned at the same time as the fort. Although most finds that are datable can be dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century AD, coins have been found dated as late as the 3rd century!

The Hofheim helmet therefore most likely dates to the early second century, roughly the same time as the Hebron helmet.

A have pondered for some time on the fact that the helmet was clearly stripped. There are some remnant of bronze decoration and rivet holes. Curiously some of the bronze had remained, i.e. the binding. This cannot have been because it was more difficult to remove. In the end I decided that the most likely reason is that the removed decoration was silver or silvered bronze and it was that material that the armourer wanted to salvage.

Quote:The two Coolus 'C' helmets from Schaan both have unembossed cheek guards
All Coolus helmets to my knowledge have plain, unembossed cheek-pieces.
Quote:Connolly demonstrated some years ago that Robinson's typologies based on decorative elements were insecure and probably flawed.
That's my opinion too and it is Robinson's dating of Imp Italic D and E that I disagree with.
Quote:Like other datable mid first century helmets the Mainz helmet has a relatively shallow occipital region and a crest holder of the same type as the Cremona Italic 'C' helmet in the Museo Stibbert and the two helmets in the National Museum, Naples said to come from Herculanium.
The crest holder of the Mainz helmet is different from both these earlier patterns. Both the Cremona and the Naples helmets have a twist on crest support with hooks at front and back. The Mainz helmet has a T-slot crest support and no hooks at all. A shallow neck-guard can also be found on the Hebron helmet, which is definitely 2nd century.

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Peroni - 01-03-2007

Quote:There are some interesting new segmened armors later in the century, but they may all date after the Hadriannic period as well, and then the only infantry helmet is the rather ugly Theilenhofen one in which the browguard was missing and must remain hypethetical.


I don't think the Theilenhofen helmet is that ugly :?
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/

Dan omitted to mention the Brigetio helmet
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/

and also the auxiliary C from Florence which could tentatively be dated to mid second century (as a forerunner/precursor to the Auxiliary E type.
[url:3qmzndf3]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/peronis/WtSWoHW_helmet.jpg[/url]

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Robert Vermaat - 01-03-2007

Quote:auxiliary C from Florence which could tentatively be dated to mid second century (as a forerunner/precursor to the Auxiliary E type.
[url:1zfvwuhg]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/peronis/WtSWoHW_helmet.jpg[/url]
Note that the Florence helmet was adapted for Late Roman use! :!:

Re: Good helmets for early second century legionarries - Peroni - 01-03-2007

Robert wrote:
Quote:Note that the Florence helmet was adapted for Late Roman use!


Or by a Batavian who just didn't like neck and cheek guards! It bears a lot of similarities to some earlier helmet finds. Please have a read of my article on Batavian helmet modifications here..
http://www.romanarmy.net/batavianhelm.htm
The first section deals with infantry helmets.